it s like, yes. that s not how the other side talks about it and their talking points this looks like we re taking people s guns away. all they said is you have to reload after cranking out 15 rounds, get a background check, pay for it yourself, your concealed weapons training has to be in person instead of over the internet and we gave judges jurisdiction over domestic violence cases to sequester guns while under court s aus spiss. it s like, i don t disagree with any of that. i understand. the nra does but many nra members do not. all three of those arguments are working in our favor. not one in particular. i want to thank john morse, up for a vote on tuesday in colorado. also want to say thanks to dick wadham, kurtis lee, and thank you to rick palacio. how technology is changing
if the senate starts moving against this, do you see any way the administration backs off this? is there a way out at this point other than going through a vote they might lose? welcome to the vagryes of the war law, the swiss cheese that hovers that president obama used not to go to you libya, the one he used in this aus spiss. does the white house after-v to back off? honestly, they know. they have answered this question in four different ways. or not answered it. one thing that came out, there s this new proposal from h they say, sign chemical weapons treat yshg 45 days to do that, then face some consequences. also remember, this is a resolution, a sense of the congress. it won t be a law. it won t be a bill. there is nothing congress is